http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
"Progress in the Middle East is threatened by weapons of mass destruction and their proliferation. Today Great Britain, France and Germany are involved in a difficult negotiation with Iran aimed at stopping its nuclear weapons program. We want our allies to succeed, because we share the view that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would be destabilizing and threatening to all of Iran's neighbors. The Iranian regime should listen to the concerns of the world and listen to the voice of the Iranian people who long for their liberty and want their country to be a respected member of the international community. We look forward to the day when Iran joins in the hopeful changes taking place across the region. We look forward to the day when the Iranian people are free."-- President George W. Bush, March 8, 2005

The Democrat Party, in their eagerness to demonize George W. Bush, will probably never accept responsibility for the cause and effect that led to a stunning news story on Monday: the Obama administration announced that it intends to ask Congress to approve a $60 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia. According to the Wall Street Journal, "the administration will authorize the Saudis to buy as many as 84 new F-15 fighters, upgrade 70 more, and purchase three types of helicopters--70 Apaches, 72 Black Hawks and 36 Little Birds."

This is the largest arms deal in U.S. history. In addition, it is reported that the United States might upgrade Saudi missile defenses and their navy in a separate deal conceivably worth additional tens of billions more.

Why are we doing this? To counter-balance the Iranian nuclear threat.

That would be the threat many Americans thought the Bush administration would forcefully address--until the American left made it clear that anything more than the kind of toothless diplomacy were involved in now would be considered tantamount to a war crime committed by the "world's leading terrorist."

So here we are, selling high-tech military equipment to the country which spawned fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers; sponsors several anti-American mosques and madrassas here in the United States; has held America hostage to manipulated oil prices via OPEC; and maintains a status quo of dictatorial government and the routine suppression of women.

Apparently the president who received a Nobel Peace Prize sees an accelerated Middle East arms race as a workable alternative to unequivocally encouraging regime change--even though regime change is the only realistic alternative to military action against Iran. How he squares that arms race with an announced 2012 conference ostensibly aimed at ridding the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction is anyone's guess. The administration is also implying that such a deal is necessary lest the Saudis purchase weapons from Europe or the Russians.

Those would be the same Russians who shipped Iran uranium to fuel their Bushehr nuclear power plant. And it would be the same Iranian regime whose Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki announced would continue enriching nuclear fuel. This latest statement is an apparent contradiction of president Ahmadinejad's promise to "stop enriching uranium to 20% purity (very close to weapon's grade) if we are ensured fuel supply," made during an August 21st interview with a Japanese newspaper.

Yet bolstering Saudi Arabia's military capability remains troubling. I suspect I'm not the only American who considers our relationship with Saudi Arabia to be a "marriage of convenience" at best--much like the one FDR had with Josef Stalin during WWll. I'd like to think somewhere in the bowels of our government there are clear-headed individuals immune to the "special relationship" sloganeering bought and paid for by millions of Saudi public relations dollars. I would like to think that the country which spawned Wahabbism, the most virulent form of Isamic fanaticism, would be perceived for exactly what it is: 5000 despotic royals sitting atop a radical Islamic powder keg, waiting to see which "stronger horse" emerges in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, that is not the characterization of Saudi Arabia on which either either political party in Washington D.C. is willing to stand. The very same American left which crucified the Bush administration's cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia has been relatively sanguine with respect to the Obama administration's relationship--even though they're virtually identical. And if the Wall Street Journal is correct in its assessment of Congressional sentiment, this arms sale will be approved.

One would think the president owes Americans a better explanation for the sale than we're currently getting. Aside from its contention that such a sale is a counter-measure to Iran's regional ambitions, the administration is shamelessly touting it as a jobs producer capable of generating up to 77,000 new positions.

With respect to the former contention, it is worth remembering that this administration's best opportunity for undermining Iran's nuclear weapons quest was immediately following what most of the world considered the rigged re-election of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iranian dissidents took to the street in surprising force and a violent crackdown by the regime ensued. A perfect time for the leader of the free world to stand with the freedom fighters? A uniquely opportune moment to establish a clear difference between "moderate Muslims" and their fanatical counterparts?

"It is not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling--the US president, meddling in Iranian elections"--President Barack Obama, June 2009

With respect to the latter contention, better to sell that failure of nerve as a "jobs" bill.
Yet even that bit of sophistry is undone by reality: the Obama administration is targeting the oil industry for two big tax hikes which, according to the Commerce Department, could cost Americans more than 150,000 jobs.

Jobs "created or saved" by combining both initiatives? 77,000 created vs. 150,000 "uncreated." You do the math.

Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton characterized America's runaway debt as a "national security issue." Perhaps someone should ask her what she considers sending billions of dollars in oil revenue to our third largest supplier, even as her boss continues to support a moratorium on domestic offshore drilling--which is also a jobs-killer. Perhaps both Clinton and Obama could explain how ramping up arms sales in the Middle East to the highest level in history squares with the president's stated desire to "end the nuclear arms race."

And how soon before our other Middle East allies get on the "arm us too" bandwagon?

No matter. None of it will deter Iran. There is no deterrence for their Koran-inspired worldview which posits that they are responsible for engineering the re-emergence of the Hidden or Twelfth Imam--a second coming which requires a "period of chaos" to precede it. The intellectual elitists believe this is nothing more than talk. Maybe they should speak to the families of American soldiers killed by Iranian-made IEDS, or the Israeli victims of Iran's proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Maybe they should speak with the families of Iranian dissidents who have been jailed, tortured and killed.

"The advance of hope in the Middle East also requires new thinking in the capitals of great democracies, including Washington, D.C. By now it should be clear that decades of excusing and accommodating tyranny in the pursuit of stability have only led to injustice and instability and tragedy."--George W. Bush, same speech as above.

Apparently not enough injustice, instability and tragedy to make a difference. At least not to the Obama administration. Better a $60 billion, job-creating, "Muslim outreach" counter-measure.

Can the slogan, "Recovery Arms Race" be far behind?

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.